[Livia]

According to the NSPCC, they've had around 1,500 contacts about FGM since 2013. and over 500 have led to a referral to the police or to Children's Services and more than 70 protective orders issued. There are currently around 170,000 women in the UK who have suffered FGM or are at risk.

And they let this man walk. He had someone cut off his daughter's clitoris, on a mat on the floor, with no anaesthetic, using a razor blade.

2018 Great Britain.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

According to the NSPCC, they've had around 1,500 contacts about FGM since 2013. and over 500 have led to a referral to the police or to Children's Services and more than 70 protective orders issued. There are currently around 170,000 women in the UK who have suffered FGM or are at risk.

And they let this man walk. He had someone cut off his daughter's clitoris, on a mat on the floor, with no anaesthetic, using a razor blade.

2018 Great Britain.

They haven't given out much info on the case in that article but I wonder why he was acquitted? Was it that they didn't believe he was involved in it (if so that seems fair) but if it's because they didn't believe the reason he did was punishment(as Jaxie said, there should be no valid reason) then that's disgraceful

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

They haven't given out much info on the case in that article but I wonder why he was acquitted? Was it that they didn't believe he was involved in it (if so that seems fair) but if it's because they didn't believe the reason he did was punishment(as Jaxie said, there should be no valid reason) then that's disgraceful

The prosecution told the jury the FGM did not happen for cultural or family reasons, but as a punishment.

However, Kate Bex QC, defending the father, suggested FGM was "predominantly perpetrated by female cutters on women" for reasons including "purification, honour and social acceptance".

And that's why, in a nutshell, when I was thinking of training as a barrister, I knew I could never be a defence barrister.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

The prosecution told the jury the FGM did not happen for cultural or family reasons, but as a punishment.

However, Kate Bex QC, defending the father, suggested FGM was "predominantly perpetrated by female cutters on women" for reasons including "purification, honour and social acceptance".

And that's why, in a nutshell, when I was thinking of training as a barrister, I knew I could never be a defence barrister.

Ugh gross, yeah I could never do that. Isn't FGM illegal in the UK though? so why does he get acquitted for it? because they're blaming the actual "cutters" rather than the parent who called them in to do it? That's crazy